Florida State Seminoles

[Professor Tiger]

I think America is reverting back to the Gilded Age, where a small number of industrial tycoons had fabulous wealth while the child laborers worked 100 hours a week in dangerous mines and firetrap textile mills. We're not back there yet, but we are certainly moving in that direction. The only things that stopped it were unions and robust government policies that helped the helpless workers.

The Republicans used to do whatever the robber barons wanted to keep the money flowing to them. That hasn't changed much. The Democrats used to be the party that championed the workers, but those days are over. Today, the Democrats are just as wedded to Big Business as the GOP. Instead of fighting for workers, the Democrats are contemptuous of those dirty little people. All the Dem's care about is identity politics/victimology, open borders, and global warming.

Yes, I still miss the old Democrat party. And I also wish somebody could figure out a way for unions to make a major comeback in a high tech modern economy. We need them badly.

[Saint]

You're right, Prof. Megacorporations are the enemy of most Americans but we elected one of their kind to run the country. Not that Hils would have been much better but the bleeding would have been much slower. Then again, Trump is probably going to force us in the revolution I've been sharpening my guillotine for since the late '80s.

[10ac]

I hope so.

[innocentbystander]

Yes, I still miss the old Democrat party. And I also wish somebody could figure out a way for unions to make a major comeback in a high tech modern economy. We need them badly.

Unions (be they in manufacturing, government, travel, distribution, etc.) can only exist to create a collective bargaining agreement for a "well defined job." All the responsibilities for said "well defined job" must be carefully stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement. That is how the union can negotiate based solely on tenure and seniority.

Tell me, in the high tech modern economy, how many information age jobs are "well defined?" I work as a software developer, a business analyst, and a project manger. My job changes every day. My responsibilities change every day. It is impossible for me to have any 3rd party represent me (and my coworkers) "collectively." And we are all compensated, promoted, or fired, based entirely on merit, not seniority.

[eCat]

the service sector needs unions badly and has needed them for years.

the problem is our government is anti-union , well except for the public sector, they're BIG on public sector unionization.

and for the most part, what is amazing to me is many of the people who would benefit from unions are against it. The conservatives have preached the evils of unions - that it creates bloated high paying jobs coupled with lazy workers, and the result is Americans can't compete - while corporations reap in crazy profits and the people making decisions to outsource American jobs or to keep employees at minimum wage rake in 20 to 100x the salary of those employees. Think about that for a moment. A political ideology that says the American worker is lazy and doesn't deserve or should be paid a high wage because a corporation can maximize their profits in a 3rd world country instead. And Americans buy into it and then say shit like a person working 40 hours a week at an unskilled job doesn't deserve a wage they can live off of.

In the mid 70's there was a fundamental change to corporate thinking and it was that corporations had an obligation to maximize profit for the shareholder. As a result, this mentality cast aside any pretense of corporate responsibility to its community, to the public and to the country as a whole. Its a big part of why blue collar middle class jobs are almost non existent, why our infrastructure is crumbling and why our inner city public schools are mostly shit. Its also part of why pensions were replaced with 401K.

Put the worker at odds with their self benefit. My retirement is tied to the well being of the corporations so we have to maximize corporate profits, even if it means the guy next to me loses his job.

Go back and look. In the 50's corporations like Chrysler, IBM, Boeing - all believed they had a responsibility to be a good citizen - in support of the quality of life of its workers and the growth of America. A CEO of a fortune 200 would be fired today if he thought like that. Worse, he'd be ridiculed for that kind of thinking

[hedge]

Being ridiculed is worse than being fired?

[hedge]

" And we are all compensated, promoted, or fired, based entirely on merit, not seniority."

If that was really true, you'd have been dead a long time ago...

[Professor Tiger]

ECat, I agree with you. It really is amazing that those workers who would benefit from unions the most are also the most anti-union. And, proving that a broken clock is still right twice a day, IB is correct that unionization is nearly impossible in the modern tech-driven economy. That's a shame.

As a pro-union guy myself, I have talked to struggling anti-union people. They are the majority here in the South. Here's how they look at it:

Unions were really big in the industrial North. But those unions ran their employers out of business and created the Rust Belt. Then they see big industrial companies moving their plants to non-unionized states (not to mention Mexico). They look at the new BMW plant in Greenville SC, the new Mercedes plant in Vance AL, and the new KIA plant in a West Point GA. They seem to be doing well and employ a lot of people.

Anti-union people say they'd rather work in a non-union auto plant for $40K than in a unionized Dearborn plant where they used to make $80K but will be laid off forever.

[eCat]

Union workers didn't help themselves much. We all know a union worker that is a complete asshole , sees management as the enemy, the company they work for as an unlimited source of revenue and benefits, and every non union worker or item owned as a threat to their existence.

The workers need a voice but they don't get much sympathy when that voice is an asshole.

If someone in the south is making $40K at a non-unionized plant, I say more power to them. You're not buying a mansion but you can achieve the American dream in that location with that kind of salary.
They probably believe they don't need a union because 5 years ago (or whenever) there was no $40K a year jobs to be had and like you said, they've seen what a Union will do to a profitable company

The union strategy is pretty straight forward. If a company is taking care of its people, it doesn't need a union.

Now if you work at Wal-Mart.......

[eCat]

American retailers are closing stores at a record pace this year as they feel the fallout from decades of overbuilding and the rise of online shopping.

Just this past week, women’s apparel chain Bebe Stores Inc. said it would close its remaining 170 shops and sell only online, while teen retailer Rue21 Inc. announced plans to close about 400 of its 1,100 locations.

“There is no reason to believe that this will abate at any point in the foreseeable future,” said Mark Cohen, the director of retail studies for Columbia Business School and a former executive at Sears Canada Inc. and other department stores.

Through April 6, closings have been announced for 2,880 retail locations this year, including hundreds of locations being shut by national chains such as Payless ShoeSource Inc. and RadioShack Corp. That is more than twice as many closings as announced during the same period last year, according to Credit Suisse.

Based on the pace so far, the brokerage estimates retailers will close more than 8,600 locations this year, which would eclipse the number of closings during the 2008 recession.

[innocentbystander]

ECat, I agree with you. It really is amazing that those workers who would benefit from unions the most are also the most anti-union. And, proving that a broken clock is still right twice a day, IB is correct that unionization is nearly impossible in the modern tech-driven economy. That's a shame.

It is not nearly impossible. Its entirely and completely impossible. And maybe that is a shame.

The thing is, much that CAN be unionized, HAS been unionized. And the places that could union (but choose not to) learned what happened to the union jobs when the compensation became so high that the business had to relocate and everyone lost their jobs. As you said, they'd rather get $20/hour and know they have a job every week (perhaps for the rest of their life) than $40/hour and maybe the plant closes tomorrow. These are the choices that people in this country are making when they don't HAVE the choices that you and I could make.

[innocentbystander]

In the mid 70's there was a fundamental change to corporate thinking and it was that corporations had an obligation to maximize profit for the shareholder. As a result, this mentality cast aside any pretense of corporate responsibility to its community, to the public and to the country as a whole. Its a big part of why blue collar middle class jobs are almost non existent, why our infrastructure is crumbling and why our inner city public schools are mostly shit. Its also part of why pensions were replaced with 401K

No. Pensions were replaced with 401Ks because business started to figure out (much to their pain and financial misery) that they can't keep growing forever. When the first pensions were spun out, the concept that the company embraced is that sure.... we can support our retired employees for the rest of their lives (and they don't have to work anymore when they hit 55 or whatever) because we'll just keep adding 10 times as many young people to the employment rolls. Our business will expand ten fold every 20 years and the pension obligations for so few retirees (compared to the size of our company tomorrow) will be painless. That all came to a screeching halt in 1973 with OPEC and layoffs. The concept of lifetime employment ended with Chinese/Mexican competition for labor/manufacturing and the price of oil skyrocketing. So now, you have companies like GM who have to absorb almost $2000 PER CAR just to pay the pension benefits for people who haven't worked there for 30 years (but are still alive.)

The math just doesn't work. People stopped smoking. Everyone lives too long and companies eliminate positions, contract in employment, they don't expand. GM had 3 times as many employees 50 years ago than they do today.

The 401K put the responsibility on the employee to care for his own retirement. Of course, if you are from the Greatest Generation (or maybe even the Silent Generation) that makes no sense. Save for retirement? Ha! That was a non-starter! These are the people of FDR thinking. They saved not one penny. They retired believing completely and totally upon the belief that their employer (and if not the employer and the pension, then their adult children funding social security) are entirely financially responsible for their care and feeding the moment they stopped working. It was the Boomers that figured out (much to their chagrin) that they had to build their own Nest Eggs to spare their kids (Gen-X and Millennials.) The 401K and the IRA was born.

[Cletus]

The 401K put the responsibility on the employee to care for his own retirement. Of course, if you are from the Greatest Generation (or maybe even the Silent Generation) that makes no sense. Save for retirement? Ha! That was a non-starter! These are the people of FDR thinking. They saved not one penny.

You have quite a knack for being wrong. The savings rate in the US was at its highest when the Greatest Generation was in their prime years.

[img2]http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files ... e-full.gif[/img2]

[img2]http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files ... s-full.gif[/img2]

[innocentbystander]

The 401K put the responsibility on the employee to care for his own retirement. Of course, if you are from the Greatest Generation (or maybe even the Silent Generation) that makes no sense. Save for retirement? Ha! That was a non-starter! These are the people of FDR thinking. They saved not one penny.

You have quite a knack for being wrong. The savings rate in the US was at its highest when the Greatest Generation was in their prime years.

[img2]http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files ... e-full.gif[/img2]

[img2]http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files ... s-full.gif[/img2]

No Cletus, I am not wrong. The Data you are showing, does not show the whole picture. It leaves out all the details. And it is in the details, where the facts are.

The savings rate in the early 1940s was predicated almost entirely on War Bonds. And why? There were no consumer goods to buy. I don't think you could buy a 1943 car. There weren't any. Chrysler, GM, Ford, everything was for the war effort. So everyone was loaning money to government so that they could get their money back in the form of GI pay or factory paychecks for building tanks, jeeps, and planes.

The personal savings rate in the late 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and especially the early 1970s, was almost entirely "home equity." Due to so many young people getting married, starting families, and buying houses with low interest rate mortgages, there was a massive, massive, increase in real estate value over those two and half decades, nationwide. It was more like a housing shortage than anything else. Suburbia was born. THAT was your "savings rate", real estate value increases.

• Then 1973 hit
• Then the Yom Kippor War started
• Then Nixon had the United States (verbally) take Israel's side
• Then (in Arab/Persian/Egyptian anger towards the US) OPEC and the first of two Oil Chrissies hit
• Then came stagflation and 17% interest rates on mortgages
• And low and behold, look at your savings rate Cletus

Real estate prices were relatively flat from 1975 to about 1983. It was the early 1980s with Reagan declaring war on inflation before interest rates on mortgages started to come down when real estate stated to boom again. But by then, the Boomers were all working and the Stock Market (for the first time in two decades) started to go batfuck crazy what with everyone buying stock to fund their 401Ks (which were replacing pensions that weren't really offered anymore.)

If you thought for one second that America's Greatest Generation was sticking 13% of their check in the bank in 1951, you are high on crack sir. All of that savings (that tapered off in the mid 1970s) it was all home equity. And it was that massive home equity increase that turned that $400 annual tuition bill for a college student in 1960 into a $14,000 annual bill in 1990 and now a $34,000 annual bill today. The education "market" simply responded to all the "savings" people had in their "homes."

Don't you dare fence with me on economics or history. You are out of your league Cletus.

[eCat]

regardless of what rationale was used for 401K versus Pensions, you can't argue there wasn't a shift in the 70's in a corporations belief from having a civic duty as well as an obligation to workers, to a maximizing profit mentality. Corporations could have kept pushing the pension. The 401K, just like social security was meant to be a complement to the pension plans. Instead, corporations saw this as an opportunity to stop funding and managing pensions.

It clearly struck a chord with the masses in this years election - both Trump and Sanders pushed for a change in this mentality, albeit with slightly different approaches. Both separated themselves from their mainstream rivals on this concept. Trump doesn't really harp on the profit side of it but he does understand that American companies have some obligation in the growth of communities as well as profits. Globalization versus Nationalism. Sanders wants a more equitable relationship between worker salaries and management and for government to make up the difference in quality of life issues that aren't obtained in the work place.

[aTm]

The 401k was invented to allow financial services companies to make a killing in fees off of the employees of major corporations using potential tax advantage savings as the bait.

[Professor Tiger]

I think IRA's and 401k's were a fantastic tool for working class people. It puts them in charge of their own destiny. Before that, the major retirement plan was the pension. Even that was only offered by big companies, and was only as good as the company offering it. Plus, what happened to my grandfather was common. He farmed at night and worked days at a West Point Pepperell textile mill. The mill fired him after 29 years and 11 months so they wouldn't owe him a pension at 30 years.

Pensions today are mostly offered by governments. And for many state and local governments, their workers' pensions are as shaky as West Point Pepperell's. Government workers expecting pensions from Chicago, or Illinois, or Detroit, or anywhere in California, would be wiser to invest in lotto tickets than expect the pensions they were promised by their corrupt and insolvent regimes.

The only pensions worth anything are the ones backed by Uncle Sam, and that's because they are the only ones that can print their own money when they get into trouble.

[hedge]

"Don't you dare fence with me on economics or history. You are out of your league Cletus."

Now that's funny...

"Plus, what happened to my grandfather was common. He farmed at night and worked days at a West Point Pepperell textile mill."

Farmed at night?

[Professor Tiger]

Yup. That's why tractors have headlights.

[eCat]

I remember when Christie became governor and realized that New Jersey hadn't properly funded the state pension plan for decades. It was hundreds of millions in debt (or future debt) they couldn't pay and he was like "oh well, I didn't make those promises, we aren't funding them"

I personally find that offensive - not that I'm a fan of bloated state pensions for public sector employees, but that said, that used to be the reason people worked for the public sector - the pay was supposed to be less than the private sector ( in the federal government that is no longer true) but the pension and perks made up for it.